A world without the UN?

03.08.2003

What would a world w/o the United Nations look like? Rumors suggest that the US might walk out of the UN - permanently even - if the Security Council fails to act on Iraq. I've posted on this topic before here. While some take the UN for granted, it's worthwhile to at least consider the possibility of it not existing. Would the world be much worse off?

Current technologies make it possible for world leaders to communicate almost instantly. Heads of state and foreign ministers routinely travel and speak to their counterparts face to face. Very little real diplomacy actually happens at the UN, at least between major powers. I'm sure this trend would continue.

Even w/o the UN, the US would no doubt still consult major players on any decision - as it does now. That means Russia and China for sure. Probably also Japan and the EU. But also local powers. Before acting in Afghanistan, the US consulted Pakistan, India, and Iran. The UN wouldn't involved itself in Kosovo, despite urgent requests from the US. Instead, the US intervened "unilaterally" after consulting w/ its NATO allies, Russia, and even Albania.

But would the end of the UN make the world harsher? I don't think so. Not in terms of democracy, at least. After all, the UN doesn't care whether a government is ruled by an elected representative body or a padisha emperor. Sovereignty is sovereignty. That's why no one bats an eye when Libya heads the UN Human Rights Commission.

The UN had little or no impact on the massive "third wave" of democracy that swept Latin America, Eastern and Southern Europe, and much of the rest of the world beginning in the 1970s. In fact, the UN has played little or no role in democratization efforts since its creation. When Alberto Fujimori ended Peruvian democracy in 1992 w/ a presidential coup, the UN did nothing. Individual countries and regional organizations - such as the OAS (Organization of American States) and the EU - imposed sanctions on Peru and pushed for a return to democracy. The same is true today of Venezuela under Hugo Chavez. The UN does nothing; most of the intervention comes from the OAS. More frequently, Latin American regimes turn to the OAS to monitor elections or mediate disputes than the UN.

And despite the heralded and impressive progress of programs like UNICEF and WHO (World Health Organization), more international assistance programs operate outside the UN. That's true not just of American aid, but also the thousands of NGOs from Japan, Europe, and other countries. Most of these programs are superior, since they don't have to deal w/ the massive UN bureaucracy and committee oversight.

Would there be losers in a post-UN world? Sure. Africa would lose. Africa has the weakest regional organization. The OAU (Organization for African Unity) has not proven very effective. Partially, perhaps, because African states would rather deal directly w/ the UN - where they make up a considerable voting block. The UN, after all, has a much larger budget. And it's in New York. Without the UN, African states would have a major incentive to strengthen their own regional organizations. One of them, ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States) has already shown itself capable of handling regional security issues.

The biggest loser, however, would be France. As an international power, France lacks considerable assets. It's not a military or economic superpower. The greatest power France wields is its Security Council veto power. W/o the UN, France would just be another European country. And the more the EU expands, the less influence France has. Especially once the East European countries Chirac so callously insulted are added to the ranks.

Ironically, France was the arbiter of the demise of the UN's predecessor, the League of Nations. In 1935, Britain called upon the League to use force to prevent Mussolini from invading Ethiopia (then called Abyssinia). Britain could've done it alone, and had already mobilized her fleet. But w/ strong anti-war sentiment at home, Britain wouldn't commit to war w/o support from the League of Nations. Driven by France, the League refused to intervene. The next year, German troops entered the Rhineland (and the Spanish Civil War). The year after that Japan was at war w/ China and Germany invaded Austria and Czechoslovakia. The rest, as they say, is history.

Posted by Miguel at 07:10 PM

Comments

you are looking at a very myopic view what happens when there is no one to govern nuclear proliferation do you mean everyone can now go ahead building arms without control at all....God help us all

Posted by: kp at March 12, 2003 07:45 PM

I take it you assume the UN is governing nuclear proliferation? Have you noticed Iran, Iraq, North Korea lately? None of the big nuclear powers (US, Russia, China, UK, France) have any interest in proliferating nuclear weapons. I'm sure they can figure out a way to reduce the threat w/o the UN. I have faith in that more than in the Security Council. Don't you?

Posted by: Miguel at March 12, 2003 07:53 PM